COLUMBIA  LIBRARIES  OFFSITE 

HEALTH  SCIENCES  STANDAHD 


,^_  HX64099075 

I  ^H     QP45  .Am35  Scientific  chicanery 


;y 


CoUege  of  ^ijpjsicians  anb  ^urgeontf 
%ihvavp 


Digitized  by  tlie  Internet  Arcliive 

in  2010  witli  funding  from 

Open  Knowledge  Commons  (for  the  Medical  Heritage  Library  project) 


http://www.archive.org/details/scientificchicanOOamer 


Scientific  Chicanery: 

DOES   IT  PAY? 


PRINTED    FOR 

THE    AMERICAN    HUMANE    ASSOCIATION 

1900    . 


f\m5S 


Scientific  Chicanery:    Does  it  Pay? 

To  one  who  has  ever  cherished  belief  in  tlie  existence  of  a 
high  standard  of  truth  and  honor  in  the  intellectual  world, 
no  more  saddening  disillusion  can  come,  than  the  realiza- 
tion of  the  untrustworthy  character  of  certain  scientific  inen. 
To  most  of  lis,  such  revelation  causes  that  shock  of  in- 
tense surprise  and  keen  disappointment  which  would  be 
occasioned  by  the  discovered  dishonesty  of  an  old  acquaint- 
ance, the  treason  of  a  trusted  friend.  We  have  been  ac- 
customed to  judge  workers  in  every  field  of  science  by  the 
ideals  and  example  of  the  illustrious  men  preceding  them, 
who  would  have  scorned  a  lie,  even  in  defense  of  a  scientific 
method,  as  the  basest  infidelity  to  Science  herself.  Some  of 
us,  perhaps,  expect  dishonesty  to  exist  in  trade,  and  chicanery 
to  find  place  in  political  life.  But  above  that  lower  world  of 
sham  and  pretense,  was — we  have  thought — one  region  of 
purer  and  diviner  air,  where -Science  and  all  who  served  her 
dwelt  ;  where  Truth  for  its  own  sake  was  loved  supremely, 
and  where  Fraud  and  Falsehood  were  alike  unknown. 

But  that  vision  of  serener  skies  and  higher  ideals  has 
already  become  dim,  and  seems  destined  soon  to  fade  away. 
Among  that  class  of  scientists  whose  methods  of  investigation 
are  alone  open  to  criticism,  there  are  many  to  whom  the  habit 
of  paltering  with  truth  has  become  so  easy,  that  their  state- 
ments upon  matters  pertaining  to  vivisection  are  to-day, 
utterly  without  value.  For  them,  the  ethics  of  controversy 
have  no  meaning.  Relying  on  the  faith  inspired  by  the 
integrity  of  men  of  science -as  a  class,  they  do  not  hesi- 
tate to  promulgate  charges  of  which,  apparently,  they  have 
not  the  slightest  proof,  to  suppress  facts,  to  suggest  false 
conclusions,  or  to  make  statements  imbued  with  the  most 
shameless  disregard  for  truth.  The  literature  in  favor  of  un- 
restrained and  unlimited  vivisection  is  filled  with  petty 
••quivocations,  evasions  and  deceits.  One  or  two  instances 
f  this  chicanery  in  behalf  of  science  we  propose  to  give,  as 
.III  illustration  of  the  evil  that  exists.  Perhaps  they  may 
attract  the  attention  of  those  who  have  the  interests  of  higher 


education  most  deeply  at  heart.  For  there  are  some  signs  of 
decadence  and  intellectual  degeneracy  that  no  true  lover  of 
Science  can  afford  longer  to  ignore. 

In  a  Report  issued  by  the  United  States  Senate  in  1896, 
there  appears  a  sort  of  manifesto,  regarding  the  practice  of 
animal  experimentation,  set  forth  as  "the  unanimous  opinion 
of  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences,"  and  signed  by  the 
president,  Wolcott  Gibbs.  The  object  in  view  was  to 
impress  members  of  Congress  against  a  bill  then  pending, 
which  provided  for  a  certain  degree  of  Governmental  super- 
vision of  vivisection  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  To  accom- 
plish this  end  most  effectively,  it  was,  by  somebody,  deemed 
expedient  that  this  distinguished  body  should  affirm,  first,  the 
painless,  or  comparatively  painless  character  of  biological 
experimentation  ;  and  secondly,  that  in  inoculations,  the  ex- 
periment involves  less  suffering  to  the  animal  than  would  be 
occasioned  by  the  administration  of  an  anaesthetic.  The 
following  extract  from  this  report,  shows  exactly  what  they 
declared  : 

"The  death  of  an  animal  in  a  physiological  laboratory  is  usually  at- 
tended with  less  suffering  than  is  associated  with  so-called  natural  death. 
...  In  modern  laboratories,  anaesthetics  are  always  employed,  except  when 
the  operation  involves  less  suffering  to  the  anitnal  than  the  administration  of  an 
ancBsthetic ,  as  in  the  case  of  inoculations^  or  in  those  instances  in  which  the 
anaesthetic  would  interfere  with  the  object  of  the  experiment.  The  suffer- 
ing incident  to  biological  investigations  is  therefore  trifling  in  atnount."* 

Here  are  two  leading  affirmations.  First,  that  "the  suifering 
incident  to  biological  investigations  is  trifling  in  amount." 
Secondly,  that  an  inoculation  experiinent  involves  less  suffer- 
ing than  would  be  occasioned  by  the  administration  of  an 
anaesthetic.  One  is  a  falsehood.  The  other  is  an  instance  of 
that  suppression  of  truth  for  the  sake  of  giving  a  false  impres- 
sion, which  is  one  of  the  meaner  phases  of  deceit. 

I.  The  proof  that  the  suffering  incident  to  biological  in- 
vestigations (a  polite  eupheniism  for  "  vivisection,")  is  not 
"  trifling  in  amount "  is  overwhelming.  Suppose  we  take  the 
evidence  of  men  whose  names  stand  high  in  the  medical  pro- 
fession, and  who  assuredly  knew  the  truth.  What  do  they 
tell  us  of  the  "trifling  suffering"  pertaining  to  animal  experi- 
mentation ? 

*54th  Congress,  ist  Session,  Report  1049,  p.  128.     Italics  are  ours. 


Dr.  Theophihis  Parvin,  LL.D.,  a  professor  in  Jefferson 
Medical  College,  Philadelphia,  delivered  the  Presidential 
Address  before  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Academy  of 
Medicine,  held  at  Washington,  D.  C,  May  4,  1891.  Therein 
he  stated  : 

"While  it  is  my  belief  that  the  majorit)'  of  vivisectors  pursue  their  work 
out  of  ardent  love  of  science,  or  desire  to  benefit  humanity  (and  I  trust  they 
carefully  and  conscientiously  avoid  inflicting  needless  ^zxxx),  there  are  others 
7uho  seem,  seeking  useless  knowledge,  to  be  blind  to  the  writhing  agony  and  deaf 
to  the  cry  of  pain  of  their  victims,  and  who  have  been  guilty  of  the  most  damna- 
ble cruelties,  without  the  denunciation  by  the  public  and  the  profession  that  their 
zuickedness  deserves  and  demands.  These  criminals  are  not  confined  to  Ger- 
many or  France,  to  England  or  Italy,  but  may  be  found  in  our  own 
country." 

"  Damnable  cruelties  !  "  Is  this  a  phrase  which  the  presi- 
dent of  a  great  Medical  Society  would  employ  concerning  the 
infliction  of  suffering  w4iich  is  '^trifling  in  amount ?" 

At  the  meeting  of  the  American  Academy  of  Medicine  at 
Atlanta,  Ga.,  May  2,  1896,  an  address  was  delivered  by  Dr. 
George  M.  Gould,  a  strong  advocate  of  vivisection,  one  of  the 
foremost  medical  writers  in  the  country,  and  the  present 
editor  of  the  Philadelphia  Medical  Journal.  Therein,  speaking 
of  vivisection,  he  said  : 

"  At  present,  the  greatest  harm  is  done  true  science  by  men  who  con- 
duct experiments  without  preliminary  knowledge  to  choose,  without  judg- 
ment to  carr)'  out,  without  true  scientific  training  or  method,  and  only  in 
the  interest  of  vanity.  It  takes  a  good  deal  of  true  science  and  patience  to 
neutralize  with  good  and  to  wash  out  of  the  memor)'^  the  sickening,  goading 
sense  of  shame  that  follows  from  the  knowledge  that,  in  the  name  of  Science 
a  man  could  ....  I  have  adduced  this  single  American  experiment,  but 
purposely  refrain  from  even  mentioning  the  horrors  of  European  labora- 
tories .  .  .  Dr.  Klein,  a  physiologist,  before  the  Royal  Commission  testi- 
fied that  he  had  no  regard  at  all  for  the  sufferings  of  the  animals  he  used,  and 
never  used  ancesthetics  except  for  didactic  purposes,  unless  necessary  for  his  own 
convenience,  and  that  he  had  "  no  time"  for  thinking  what  the  animal  would 
feel  or  suflTer.  It  may  be  denied,  but  /  am  certain  a  few  American  experi- 
menters feel  the  same  way,  and  act  in  accordance  with  their  feelings.  But  they 
are  not  by  any  means  the  majority,  and  they  must  not  only  be  silenced, 
but  their  useless  and  unscientific  work  should  be  stopped.  They  are  a  dis- 
grace both  to  science  and  humanity."  * 

And  yet  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences  had  the  audacity 
to  assure  Congress  that  ''the  suffering  incident  to  biological 
investigations  is  ^^  trifling  in  amount!" 

*Borderland  Studies,  pp.  30,  33.     Italics  are  ours. 


Take  still  another  witness.  Nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century 
after  the  discovery  of  anaesthetics,  one  of  the  principal  sur- 
geons of  America,  Dr.  Henry  J.  Bigelow,  the  professor  of 
surgery  in  Harvard  Medical  School,  in  an  address  before  the 
Massachusetts  Medical  Society,  referred  thus  to  the  suffering 
inflicted  in  biological  research,  which  the  National  Academy 
of  Sciences  assures  Congress  is  "  trifling  in  amount." 

"  How  few  facts  of  immediate  considerable  value  to  our  race  have  of  late 
years  been  extorted  from  the  dreadful  sufferings  of  dumb  animals,  the 
cold-blooded  cruelties  now  more  and  more  practiced  under  the  authorit)' 
of  science  ! 

The  horrors  of  Vivisection  have  supplanted  the  solemnity,  the  thrilling 
fascination  of  the  old  unetherized  operation  upon  the  human  sufferer. 
Their  recorded  phenomena,  stored  away  by  the  physiological  inquisitor  on 
dusty  shelves,  are  mostly  of  as  little  present  value  to  man  as  the  knowledge 
of  a  new  comet,  .  .  .  contemptible  compared  with  the  price  paid  for  it  in 
agony  and  torture. 

For  every  inch  cut  by  one  of  these  experimenters  in  the  quivering 
tissues  of  the  helpless  dog  or  rabbit  or  Guinea-pig,  let  him  insert  a  lancet 
one-eighth  of  an  inch  into  his  own  skin,  and  for  every  inch  more  he  cuts, 
let  him  advance  the  lancet  another  eighth  of  an  inch,  and  whenever  he 
seizes,  with  ragged  forceps,  a  nerve  or  spinal  marrow,  the  seat  of  all  that  is 
concentrated  and  exquisite  in  agony,  or  literall}'^  tears  out  nerves  by  their 
roots,  let  him  cut  onl)'^  one-eighth  of  an  inch  further,  and  he  may  have  some 
faint  suggestion  of  the  atrocity  he  is  perpetrating  when  the  Guinea-pig 
shrieks,  the  poor  dog  yells,  the  noble  horse  groans  and  strains — the  heart- 
less vivisector  perhaps  resenting  the  struggle  which  annoys  him I 

have  heard  it  said  that  "  somebody  must  do  this."  I  say  it  is  needless. 
Nobody  should  do  it.  Watch  the  students  at  a  vivisection.  It  is  the  blood 
and  suffering,  not  the  science,  that  rivets  their  breathless  attention.  If 
hospital  service  makes  young  students  less  tender  of  suffering,  vivisection 
deadens  their  humanity  and  begets  indifference  to  it." 

Is  it  likely  that  a  surgeon  of  national  reputation,  a  teacher 
of  surgery  in  a  great  medical  school,  would  have  referred  to 
''  agony  and  torture,"  to  "  dreadful  sufferings  of  dumb  ani- 
mals," and  to  "cold-blooded  cruelties,  now  more  and  more 
practiced  under  the  authority  of  Science,"  if,  as  the  National 
Academy  of  Sciences  and  other  associations  assert,  nothing  of 
the  kind  takes  place?  There  is  in  such  denial  the  audacity 
of  guilt.  The  writer  who  phrased  that  denial  stated  a 
falsehood.  He  did  worse  ;  he  induced  those  of  his  too-trust- 
ing associates,  whose  lines  of  scientific  research  lay  in  other 


directions,  to  endorse  without  a  dissenting  voice  what  he  knew 
was  untrue. 

II.  Is  it  true  that  an  inoculation-experiment  is  so  trivial 
that  the  operation  "  involves  less  suffering  than  the  adminis- 
tration of  an  anaesthetic?"  The  members  of  the  National 
Academy  of  Sciences  so  declare.     Is  the  statement  correct  ? 

No.  It  is  a  "  suppression  of  the  truth  with  intent  to  de- 
ceive "  utterly  unworthy  of  students  of  science  or  of  honor- 
able men.  It  is  a  typical  example  of  that  chicanery  to 
which  a  certain  class  of  scientists  do  not  hesitate  to  resort,  if 
thereby  they  may  veil  their  practices  from  the  public  eye. 
More  than  once  its  mendacity  has  been  .exposed.  Let  us 
again  give  the  proof  of  it,  and  upon  an  authority,  the  emi- 
nence of  which  cannot  be  questioned. 

In  his  Presidential  Address  in  the  Section  of  State  Medi- 
cine at  the  last  Annual  Meeting  of  the  British  Medical 
Association  in  August,  1899,  Dr.  George  Wilson,  LL.D., 
probably  the  leading  authority  in  Great  Britain  upon  Pre- 
ventive Medicine,  made  the  following  indignant  exposure  of 
this  contemptible  evasion  : 

"  I  boldly  say  there  should  be  some  pause  in  these  ruthless  lines  of  ex- 
perimentation. .  .  .  I  have  not  allied  myself  to  the  Anti-vivisectionists,  but 
I  accuse  my  prof  essioii  of  misleading  the  public  as  to  the  cruelties  and  horrors 
which  are  perpetrated  on  animal  life.  When  it  is  stated  that  the  actual  pain 
involved  in  these  experiments  is  commonly  of  the  most  trifling  description, 
there  is  a  SUPPRESSION  OF  THE  TRUTH,  of  the  most  palpable  kind,  which  could 
only  be  accounted  for  at  the  time  by  ignorance  of  the  actual  facts.  I 
admit  that  in  the  mere  operation  of  injecting  a  virus,  whether  cultivated  or 
not,  there  ma}^  be  little  or  no  pain,  but  the  cruelty  does  not  lie  in  the  opera- 
tion itself,  which  is  permitted  to  be  performed  without  anaesthetics,  but  in 
the  after-effects.  Whether  so-called  toxins  are  injected  under  the  skin  into 
the  peritoneum,  into  the  craniutn,  under  the  dura  mater,  into  the  pleural  cavity, 
into  the  veins,  eyes,  or  other  organs — and  all  these  methods  are  ruthlessly  prac- 
ticed— there  is  long-drawn-out  agony.  The  animal  so  innocently  operated  on 
may  have  to  live  days,  zveeks,  or  months,  tvith  no  anaesthetic  to  assuage  its 
sufferings,  and  nothing  but  death  to  relieve." 

So  much  for  the  exposure.  A  more  disgraceful  instance  of 
intent  to  deceive  by  ignoble  artifice,  is  seldom  brought  to 
light.  If  we  place  the  chief  guilt  on  that  man — whoever  he 
Wits — who  drew  up  the  memorial  for  his  fellow-members  to 
sign,  what  shall  we  say  of  a  great  scientific  association — a 
National  Academy  of  Sciences — that  could  give  "  unanimous 
assent  "  to  a  statement  inspired  by  fraud  ?    If,  with  Dr.  Wilson, 


we  suggest  the  excuse  that  "  ignorance  of  the  actual  facts  " 
caused  an  erroneous  judgment,  what  then  are  we  to  think  of 
the  simplicity  that  could  be  so  easily  deceived,  or  of  the  hypoc- 
risy that,  pretending  to  knowledge  it  did  not  possess,  could  so 
freely  lend  its  influence  to  obstruct  legislation  against  cruelty 
and  vice  ?  Was  there  not  a  single  member  of  the  National 
Academy  of  Sciences  who  dared  to  say  :  "  I  do  not  know  the 
facts,  and  I  will  not  sign  such  a  memorial  ?  "  Or  was  the  sup- 
pression of  truth  recognized,  but  regarded  as  too  valuable  in 
its  influence  to  be  discarded  ?  Among  a  certain  class  of  men, 
a  falsehood  is  judged  solely  by  the  advantage  that  accrues. 
Even  on  this  low  plane,  was  one,  so  easily  exposed,  worth  its 
cost  to  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences,  in  depreciation 
of  honor,  in  impairment  of  public  confidence,  in  atrophy  of 
self-respect  ?  * 

Whenever  an  instance  of  this  "  suppression  of  truth "  is 
detected  and  pointed  out,  some  one  interested  in  the  suc- 
cess of  the  petty  deceit  will  attempt  to  excuse  it  by  asserting 
that  no  real  lie  has  been  told.  He,  however,  is  a  genius  in 
the  art  of  chicanery,  who  can  make  this  claim,  and  at  the  same 
moment — while  adhering  verbally  to  the  truth — can  phrase 
yet  another  suggestion  of  that  which  is  untrue  !  When, 
among  other  evasions  and  equivocations,  the  false  insinua- 
tion of  the  painless  character  of  inoculation  experiments 
had  been  pointed  out  in  a  Senate  Document,!  Surgeon- 
General  Sternberg  hastened  to  make  reply.  "  The  pain 
attending  the  inoculation  is  trifling,  and  does  not  call  for 
the  administration   of   an   anaesthetic."      That   is   quite   true. 

*As  a  further  illustration  of  the  extravagant  and  absurd  statements 
which  eminent  men  permit  themselves  to  endorse,  it  is  probable  that  for 
impudence  and  falsity,  nothing  has  exceeded  the  following  extract  from  a 
preamble  to  certain  resolutions  on  vivisection,  which  were  '"  uitanimously 
passed  at  the  meeting  of  the  New  York  State  Medical  Association, 
October  13,  1896."      The  italics  are  ours. 

"  Whereas,  in  the  ra^'e  instances  in  which  some  pain  may  be  inflicted,  it 
is  moderate  and  of  brief  duration,  and  is  not  to  be  contrasted  with  the  amount 
or  the  degree  of  suffering  constantly  inflicted  by  the  owner  of  animals  in  their 
daily  use  of  them,  and  even  by  parents  toward  their  children,  etc." 

The  vivisections  referred  to  by  Gould  and  Parvin,  Bigelow  and  Wilson, 
are  so  trivial  that  in  the  opinion  of  this  State  society,  they  are  not  to  be 
contrasted  with  "the  suffering  constantly  ijiflicted  by  parents  toward  their 
children  !  "     Certainly  bad  grammar  and  falsehood  go  fitly  together. 

fDoc.  No.  78,  Fifty-fifth  Congress. 


'"But  no  one,"  he  adds,  "so  far  as  I  bnow,  has  ever  denied 
that  as  a  result  of  such  inoculation,  there  may  at  times  be 
more  or  less  pain."  Here  at  last  is  confession — confession 
of  what  it  was  hoped  might  be  hidden  from  the  public,  by 
"  suppression  of  truth."  And  then  the  Surgeon-General  adds 
the  insinuating  statement:  "To  give  an  anaesthetic  to  an 
inoculated  animal  during  the  time  it  is  under  observation 
to  determine  the  result  of  the  experiment  would  entirely 
neutralize  the  value  of  the  experiment,  and  a  law  requiring 
this,  tvould  effectually  arrest  all  investigations  of  this  kind."  .   .  . 

If  we  may  put  all  ethical  considerations  aside,  such  a  sen- 
tence is  a  stroke  of  genius.  Every  word  is  trvie  ;  and  yet  in  the 
deftest  manner  possible,  there  is  an  insinuation,  or  suggestion, 
in  the  words  italicized,  that  was  absolutely  false.  For  at  the 
time  this  communication  was  made  to  Congress,  there  was 
before  the  United  States  Senate  a  bill  for  the  regulation  and 
supervision  of  vivisection  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Nine 
out  of  every  ten  Senators  reading  that  sentence  would  natur- 
ally take  it  for  granted  that  Surgeon-General  Sternberg  was 
again  protesting  against  some  provision  in  this  bill,  which, 
if  carried  into  effect,  "  would  arrest  all  investigations  of 
the  kind."  And  yet  it  was  a  bit  of  pure  chicanery.  JVo  bill 
with  these  provisions  was  before  Congress.  The  measure  against 
which  the  Surgeon-General  was  working,  distinctly  pro- 
vided that  inoculation  experiments  should  not  be  affected. 

"  Sect.  2,  c.  The  animal  must,  during  the  whole  of  the  experiment  be 
completely  under  the  influence  of  ether  or  chloroform  sufficientl)'^  to  pre- 
vent the  animal  from  feeling  pain,  excepting  only ^  that  in  so-called  inoculation 
experiments  .   .    .   the  animal  need  not  he  ancrsthetized  nor  killed  afterward." 

Doubtless  this  apparent  reference  to  a  bill  which  did  not 
exist,  helped,  here  and  there,  to  create  that  unfavorable  im- 
pression upon  members  of  Congress  for  which  it  was  probably 
written.  But  does  such  chicaiiery  pay  ?  Is  science  ever 
honored  by  ignoble  methods  of  defense?  Even  as  a  suc- 
cessful trick,  was  it  worthy  of  the  Surgeon-General  of  the 
United  .States  Army  ? 

Let  us  consider  another  instance  of  the  unreliability  of  this 
class  of  scientific  men.  In  the  same  Senate  Report  on  Vivi- 
section, to  which  reference  has  been  made,  there  appears  a 
"  Statement   in   behalf   of    Science,"    signed    by    some   forty 


American  "investigators  "  or  vivisectors,  asking  in  effect,  that 
the  practice  of  animal  experimentation  in  the  District  of 
Columbia  be  continued  free  from  all  Government  supervision 
or  control.*  To  increase  the  importance  of  this  manifesto,  it 
was  introdvxced  to  the  public  by  a  special  letter,  signed, 
among  others,  by  Dr.  Charles  W.  Eliot,  the  President  of  Har- 
vard University,  vouching  for  it  as  a  statement  which  "  may 
be  accepted  as  an  authoritative  expression  of  expert  opinion.'' 
Its  opening  sentences  were  as  follows  : 

"  So  long  ago  as  the  autumn  of  1866,  there  were  published  in  New  York 
denunciations  of  the  practice  of  making  upon  living  animals  those  scien- 
tific observations  and  experiments  which  are  commonly  called  vivisections. 
During  the  following  twenty-nine  years  there  have  appeared  from  time  to 
time  similar  denunciations,  more  or  less  sweeping  and  violent.  Of  these, 
some  condemn  vivisection  altogether,  and  others  in  various  of  its  phases. 
Some  call  for  its  total  abolition,  and  others  for  its  material  restriction. 
Some  are  labored  essays,  and  others  are  brief  "tracts"  or  "leaflets," 
intended  more  easily  to  arrest  the  attention.  .  .  .  In  these  pttblications,  too, 
there  often  figure  extracts  from  scientific  writings ;  and  in  many  cases  these 
extracts  are  so  garbled,  that  only  ignorant  or  reckless  animosity  could  be  accepted 
in  excuse  for  their  seeming  bad  faith."\ 

Among  the  signatures  to  this  document  were  the  following 
names  : 

S.  Weir  Mitchell,   M.D.,   Philadelphia,   Pa.,    Member  of  the  National 

Academy  of  Sciences. 
J.  G.  Curtis,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Physiology,  College  of  Physicians  and 

Surgeons,  Columbia  College,  New  York. 
W.  H.  Howell,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Physiology,  Johns  Hopkins  Univer- 
sity, Baltimore,  Md. 
H.  P.  BowDiTCH,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Physiology,  Harvard  Medical  School, 

Harvard  University,  Boston,  Mass. 
W.  T.  Porter,  M.D.,  Assistant  Professor  of  Physiology,  Harvard  Medical 

School,  Harvard  University,  Boston,  Mass. 
J.  W.  Warren,  M.D.,   Associate   Professor    of    Physiology,   Bryn   Mawr 

College,  Bryn  Mawr,  Pa. 
R.   H.  Chittenden,  Ph.D.,   Professor  of  Physiological   Chemistry,    Yale 

University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
V.  C.  Vaughan,  M.D.,  Professor  of  H)'giene  and  Physiological  Chemistry, 

Medical  Department  of  Michigan  University,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich. 
John  Marshall,  M.D.,  Assistant  Professor  of  Chemistry,  University  of 

Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

*  See  Report  1049,  P-  57- 
f  Italics  ours. 


S.  C.  Bl'SEY,  M.D.,  President  of  the  Medical  Society,  District  of 
Columbia. 

Henry  M.  Lyman,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Principles  and  Practice  of  Medi- 
cine, Rush  Medical  College,  Chicago,  111. 

E.  J.  Janeway,  M.D.,  late  Professor  of  Principles  and  Practice  of  Medi- 
cine, Bellevue  Hospital  Medical  College,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Ch.  Wardeli,  Stiles,  Ph.D.,  Zoologist,  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  U.  S. 
Department  of  Agriculture. 

William  Patten,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Biology,  Dartmouth  College. 

William  T.  Sedgwick,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Biology,  Massachusetts  Insti- 
tute of  Technology,  Boston,  Mass. 

H.  C.  Ernst,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Bacteriology,  Harvard  Medical  School, 
Harvard  University,  Boston,  Mass. 

Theobald  S.mith.  M.D.,  Professor  of  Applied  Zoology,  Bussey  Institute, 
Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

A.  C.  Abbott,  M.D.,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

].  J.  Abel,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Pharmacology,  Johns  Hopkins  University. 

H.  C.  Wood,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Materia  Medica  and  Therapeutics,  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsj'lvania,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Harrison  Allen,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Zoolog)-  and  Comparative  Anatomy. 
Universit}'  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

G.  A.  Piersol,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Anatomj-,  University  of  Pennsylvania, 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 

C.  S.  MiNOT,  S.D.,  Professor  of  Histology  and  Embryology,  Harvard 
Medical  School,  Harvard  Universit}',  Boston,  Mass. 

Henry  F.  Osborn,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Biology,  Columbia  College,  N.  Y. 

C.  O.  Whitman,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Zoology,  University  of  Chicago. 

WiLLlA.M  H.  Welch,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Pathology,  Johns  Hopkins  Uni- 
versity, Baltimore,  Md. 

T.  M.  Prudden,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Histology  and  Pathology,  Columbia 
College,  New  York. 

R.  H.  FiTZ,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Theory  and  Practice  of  Medicine,  Harvard 
Medical  School,  Harvard  University,  Boston,  Mass. 

George  M.  Sternberg,  M.D.,  Surgeon-General  U.  S.  Army. 

J.  RuFUS  Tryon,  M.D.,  Surgeon-General  U.  S.  Navy,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Walter  J.  Wyman,  M.D.,  Surgeon-General  U.  S.  Marine-Hospital  Service, 
Washington,  D.  C. 

Daniel  E.  Sal.mon,  D.V.M.,  Hon.  A.R.C.V.S.,  Chief  of  Bureau  of  Animal 
Industry,  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  Washington,  D.  C. 

W.  W.  Keen,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Principles  of  Surgery  and  Clinical  Sur- 
gery, JefTerson  Medical  College,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

William  Osler,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Clinical  Medicine,  Johns  Hopkins 
University,  Baltimore,  Md. 

The   signers  of  tliis  manifesto  admit  that  they  could   not 
hope  "  to  make  any  statement  "  which  would  not  be  denounced 


as  "false."  This  is  hardly  a  reputation  which  men  in  general 
desire  to  proclaim  to  the  world.  Doubtless,  there  were  good 
reasons  for  that  conscious  distrust. 

Let  us  clearly  understand  the  matter.  The  modern  contro- 
versy over  vivisection  has  been  going  on  for  over  a  third  of  a 
century.  That  no  imperfect  quotation  has  ever  been  made 
by  the  opponents  of  unlimited  experimentation,  either  in 
Europe  or  America,  would  be  too  much  to  assert.  Nearly 
ten  years  since,  an  English  lady  compiled  a  work,  under  the 
somewhat  suggestive  title  of  "The  Nine  Circles,"  which  was 
intended  to  illustrate  certain  phases  of  vivisection.  In  describ- 
ing experiments  which  lasted  for  hours  or  days  or  months, 
the  compiler  did  not  always  mention  that  in  certain  cases  the 
initial  operation,  lasting  sometimes  but  a  few  minutes,  was 
performed  under  anaesthetics  ;  and  for  this  and  a  few  like 
omissions,  the  work  was  severely  denounced  by  one  of  the 
leading  vivisectors  of  Great  Britain,  as  misleading  and  unfair. 
The  book  thus  criticised  was  immediately  withdrawn  from 
circulation.  How  little  its  intrinsic  reliability  was  affected  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  the  omissions  were  immediately  sup- 
plied and  the  book  again  brought  out  with  an  introduction  by 
Dr.  Edward  Berdoe,  a  leading  London  physician.  More  than 
a  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  in  September,  1874,  the  late  Henry 
Bergh,  writing  to  the  "  New  York  Tribune,"  quoted  from 
Brown-Sequard  the  statement  that  in  a  certain  vivisection,  the 
result  of  incisions  was  "all  guesswork,"  omitting  to  add  that 
after  death  of  the  animal,  anatomical  observations  removed 
the  uncertainty  of  the  vivisection.  The  omission  was  not 
very  important ;  still,  it  was  one  that  would  not  have  occurred 
under  a  more  careful  adherence  to  verbal  accuracy.  But 
neither  of  these  two  cases  can  have  had  anything  to  do  with 
the  imputations  made.  One  was  a  book  printed  in  England 
ten  years  since  ;  the  other  a  hasty  newspaper  letter  published 
twenty-five  years  ago.  Neither  as  "essays,"  or  "leaflets,"  or 
^'tracts,"  can  they  have  been  referred  to  by  the  forty  scientists 
as  ^'' the  many  cases''  in  which  extracts  from  scientific  writings 
are  chargeable  with  intentional  inaccuracy. 

The  important  question,  therefore,  that  confronts  us  is 
simply  this  :  Did  these  forty  "  scientists "  tell  the  truth 
in  the  passage  that  has  been  cited  from  their  "  Statement  in 


behalf  of  Science  ? "  The  literature  of  protest  against  the 
atrocities  and  cruelties  of  vivisection  abounds,  as  they  say, 
with  quotations  from  the  writings  of  scientific  men.  The 
vast  majority  of  those  who  question  the  morality  of  the  un- 
limited vivisection  now  going  on  in  America  and  the  conti- 
nent of  Europe,  base  their  doubts  or  their  convictions  upon 
the  accuracy  and  reliability  of  this  evidence.  May  it  all  be 
dismissed  by  an  accusation  like  this — put  forth  Avithovit  a 
particle  of  proof  ?  Is  it  true,  or  is  it  false,  that  "  in  many 
cases  "  these  quotations  are  so  garbled  as  only  to  suggest  bad 
faith  and  reckless  animosity  ?  This  is  a  very  simple  question. 
It  is  determinable  by  evidence.  But  one  conclusion  is  possi- 
ble. Each  of  the  men  who  put  his  name  to  that  document 
"  in  behalf  of  Science  "  either  possessed  evidence  of  the  truth 
of  the  assertions  he  was  making,  or  else  he  signed  it  knowing 
that  he  was  lending  his  name  and  influence  to  a  charge  for 
lohich  he  had  no  proof  whatever^  and  which  might  be  false.  If  such 
evidence  was  in  his  possession,  we  should  expect  its  produc- 
tion immediately  its  existence  was  questioned.  If  he  had  no 
such  evidence,  then  every  signer  of  that  charge  was  guilty  of  a 
false  statement ;  of  an  act  of  perfidy  to  scientific  truth.  There  are 
gradations  in  dishonor  ;  there  are  offenses  for  which  even 
"  reckless  animosity"  is  no  excuse. 

At  the  convention  of  The  American  Humane  Association, 
held  in  Washington,  D.  C,  in  December,  1898,  it  was  felt  that 
this  charge — so  injurious  even  if  false — ought  not  to  pass  un- 
challenged. Simply  to  denounce  it  as  untrue  was  deemed  not 
enough  ;  every  signer  of  that  document  should  have  the  mat- 
ter brought  directly  to  his  personal  notice,  and  a  request 
made  him  for  whatever  evidence  was  in  his  possession.  The 
following  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted,  December  16, 
1898  : 

"  Whkreas,  In  the  Senate  Report  No.  1049,  concerning  Vivisection, 
there  appears  "A  Statement  in  Behalf  ok  Science,"  bearing,  among 
other  well-known  signatures,  the  names  of  George  M.  Sternberg,  M.D., 
Surgeon-General  U.  S.  Army  ;  Daniel  E.  Salmon,  Doctor  of  Veterinary 
Medicine,  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture  ;  Charles  Wardell  Stiles,  Ph.D., 
of  the  same  department,  and  S.  C.  Busey,  M.  D.,  President  of  the  Medical 
Society,  Washington,  D.  C;  and 

Whereas,  In  its  reference  to  various  leaflets  and  pamphlets  issued  by 
some  of  our  constituent  societies  regarding  the  practice  of  vivisection,  this 
manifesto  makes  a  most  serious  imputation,  alleging  that 


'  In  these  publications,  too,  there  often  figure  extracts  from 
scientific  writings,  and  in  many  cases,  these  extracts  are  so  gar- 
bled that  only  ignorant  or  reckless  animosity  could  be  accepted 
in  excuse  for  their  seeming  bad  faith  ; '  and 

Whereas,  This  charge,  absolutely  unsupported  by  an};-  evidence  what- 
ever, constitutes  a  most  grave  aspersion  upon  the  honor,  veracity  and  good 
faith  of  some  of  our  constituent  societies  ;  and 

Whereas,  This  Association  is  unwilling  to  believe  that  allegations,  so 
dishonoring  to  their  authors,  if  untrue,  can  have  been  heedlessly  and  ma- 
liciously made  by  scientific  men  of  such  eminence,  without  their  having  at 
hand  at  least  some  apparent  proofs  of  their  charges  ;  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  American  Humane  Association  hereby  respectfull}', 
but  emphatically  protests  against  the  putting  forth  of  such  imputations 
without  production  of  the  evidence  upon  which  they  rest  ;  and  it  therefore 
requests  each  and  every  signer  of  this  '  Statement  in  Behalf  of  Science  ' 
(and  especiall}^  each  of  the  signers  above  named,  who  is  in  Government 
employ),  to  furnish  the  Secretary  of  this  Association  with  a  reference  to 
some  few  of  these  '  many '  extracts  from  Scientific  writings  concerning 
Vivisection  which  he  claims  to  have  been  'garbled  ;'  accompanjang  such 
reference  with  an  exact  quotation  of  the  words  or  phrases  which  have  been 
so  altered  or  omitted  as  to  have  materially  changed,  or  distorted  the  mean- 
ing of  the  writer  thus  cited." 

To  each  signer  of  the  "Statement  in  Belialf  of  Science"  a 
printed  copy  of  this  resolution  was  sent,  together  with  the 
following  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  the  American  Humane 
Association  : 

Fall  River,  Mass., 

21,  January,  1899. 
Dea7-  Sir: — I  have  been  directed  to  ask  for  proof,  or  for  any  evidence  in 
your  hands,  of  the  charges  made  by  you   over  your  published  signature, 
and  referred  to  in  the  accompanying  Resolution. 
An  early  reply  will  oblige 

Yours  very  truly, 

FRANCIS  H.   ROWLEY,   Sec'y. 

The  responses  to  this  request  have  been  precisely  as  might 
have  been  anticipated  w4iere  the  signers  had  no  proof  of  the 
imputations  they  had  made.  Charles  Wardell  Stiles,  of  the 
Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  Washington,  and  calling  himself 
a  "Scientific  Attache  of  the  United  States  Embassy" — what- 
ever that  may  be — wrote  from  Berlin,  Germany,  March  3, 
1899,  that  his  private  library  being  in  storage,  he  was  unable 
to  comply  with  the  request.  He  intimated  willingness  to 
furnish  some  evidence  of  the  sort  on  his  return  to  Washing- 


13 

ton,  but  no  further  word  from  him  has  been  received.  The 
private  secretary  of  Dr.  S.  Weir  Mitchell  wrote  under  date  of 
January  23,  1899,  that  Dr.  Mitchell  was  "in  Europe  for  the 
winter,"  and  that  she  was  not  permitted  to  send  him  any  notes 
upon  matters  of  business  outside  of  his  profession.  No  fur- 
ther response  from  Dr.  Mitchell  has  been  received.  It  is  not 
generally  known  that  Dr.  S.  Weir  Mitchell,  whose  name  is 
now  so  well  known  as  a  novelist,  was,  some  thirty  years  ago, 
one  of  the  leading  vivisectors  of  the  United  States. 

The  Surgeon-General  of  the  United  States  wrote  as  follows: 

War  Department, 

Surgeon-General's  Office, 

Washington,  D.  C,  Jan.  26,  1899. 
Mr.  Francis  H.  Rowley, 

Fall  River,  Mass., 
Dear  Sir : — I  am  so  very  much  occupied  by  my  official  duties  that  I  am 
unable  at  present  to  give  any  further  attention  to  your  communication  of 
lanuary  21st.     I  hope,  however,  to  be  able  to  do  so  at  some  future  time. 
Very  trul)^  yours, 

GEORGE   M.   STERNBERG, 

Surgeon-General  U.  S.  Army. 

Xo  further  communication  from  General  Sternberg  has 
been  received.  It  is  highly  probable  that  if  the  Surgeon- 
General  could  have  referred  to  a  few  facts  in  support  of  the 
charge  he  had  made  over  his  official  signature,  he  would  have 
found  the  necessary  moments  of  leisure  during  the  year  that 
has  elapsed. 

Dr.  W.  W.  Keen  of  Jefferson  Medical  College,  Philadelphia, 
wrote  as  follows  : 

1729  Chestnut  St., 

Philadelphia,  Feb.  4,  1S99. 
My  Dear  Sir: — In  reply  to  your  letter  received  a  few  days  ago,  I  beg  to 
say  that  a  suitable  reply  will  be   prepared   and   forwarded   to  you   in  due 
time. 

Yours  very  truh', 

W.  W.   KEEN. 

Nine  months  have  gone  by  since  that  letter  was  received, 
and  we  still  await  the  "suitable  reply." 

Prof.  R.  H.  Fitz,  M.D.,  of  Harvard  Medical  School,  Harvard 
University,  wrote  thus  : 


14 

1 8  Arlington  Street. 
Francis  H.  Rowle)^,  Esq.,  Sec'}^, 

Dear  Sir : — I  have  referred  your  letter  of  the  2ist  inst.  to  one  of  the 
committee  having  in  charge  the  preparation  of  the  document  referred  to. 

Yours  sincerely, 

R.   H.  FITZ. 
Boston,  23,  Jan.,  1899. 

In  other  words,  Prof.  Fitz  of  Harvard  University,  having 
no  evidence  whatever  of  the  imputation  to  which  he  had 
affixed  his  name,  fancies  that  he  can  now  wash  his  hands  of 
all  responsibility  for  the  falsehood,  by  passing  the  request 
over  to  the  men  who  phrased  it — whom  he  does  not  name  ! 

Prof.  Charles  S.  Minot,  S.D.,  of  Harvard  Medical  School, 
Harvard  University,  writes,  without  date,  the  following 
astounding  communication  : 

Dear  Sir  : — To  cite  only  one  instance  :  Mr.  Peabody,  formerly — I  have 
been  told — president  of  the  Anti-Vivisection  Societ}'  of  Boston,  made  be- 
fore the  committee  of  the  Massachusetts  Legislature,  the  most  impudent, 
outrageous  and  baseless  accusations  against  officers  of  the  Harvard 
Medical  School,  in  my  hearing.  When  cross-questioned,  he  had  not  the 
faintest,  most  remote  or  trifling  foundation  for  any  of  his  accusations,  and 
only  demonstrated  that  he  was  guilty  of  deliberate  misrepresentation. 

CHARLES  S.   MINOT. 

Considering  its  source,  this  is  a  most  extraordinary  epistle. 
The  writer  is  a  man  of  science,  yet  his  letter  violates  almost 
every  rule  of  scientific  precision.  Professor  Minot  had  affixed 
his  name  to  a  charge  that  in  the  various  publications  put 
forth  by  the  critics  of  vivisection,  there  were  "//;  many  cases,'' 
garbled  quotations  from  scientific  writings.  He  is  respect- 
fully asked  for  the  evidence  upon  which  he  had  made  that 
accusation.  Instead  of  quoting  a  line,  or  giving  a  single 
reference  to  the  "many  cases,"  he  tells  us  with  child-like  sim- 
plicity, that  he  once  heard  Mr.  Peabody  make  a  speech  against 
himself  and  his  associates  of  the  Harvard  Medical  School, 
which  speech  he  forthwith  proceeds  to  denounce  !  Is  it  pos- 
sible that  Prof.  Minot  as  a  scientific  man  really  believed  that, 
in  citing  from  memory  a  speech  of  Mr.  Peabody,  he  was  giv- 
ing proof  that  garbled  "  extracts  from  scientific  writings  "  had 
been  made  in  CQXt2i\n piblicatiofis  ?  Is  this  the  kind  of  scientific 
precision  which  is  taught  by  vivisection  in  the  laboratories  of 
Harvard  University? 


15 

Here,  then,  is  the  result.  Of  the  above-named  forty  experts 
in  scientific  accuracy,  who  so  solemnly  affixed  their  signa- 
tures to  this  calumny,  but  six  made  any  reply  when  called 
upon  for  proof,  and  not  one  furnished  a  single  line  of  evidence  in 
support  of  his  statement.  Their  charge  was  false.  The  man  who 
phrased  it  doubtless  knew  it  was  false.  The  men  who  sent  it 
forth  to  the  world,  knew  that  whether  true  or  untrue,  the}\  at 
least,  had  no  proofs  of  the  imputation  to  which  they  lent  the 
authority  of  their  names.  It  is  simply  another  instance  of  the 
utter  unreliability  of  scientific  men,  when,  leaving  legitimate 
fields  of  inquiry,  they  enter  the  arena  in  defense  of  pursuits 
and  practices,  linked  to  Cruelty  and  Vice,  and  impeached  to- 
dav  bv  the  moral  sentiment  of  mankind. 


At  the  annual  convention  of  the  American  Humane  Asso- 
ciation, held  in  Columbus,  Ohio,  September,  1899,  the  follow- 
ing resolution  was  adopted  without  a  dissenting  voice  : 

Whereas.  At  the  last  annual  meeting  of  the  American  Humane  Asso- 
ciation, held  at  Washington,  D.  C,  in  December,  1898,  attention  was 
called  to  a  Document  issued  by  the  United  States  Senate,  containing  a 
"  Statement"  signed  b}'  men  eminent  as  professional  men,  or  as  experts  in 
the  practice  of  vivisection,  and  vouched  for  b)'  the  President  of  Harvard 
University  and  others  as  "An  Authoritative  Expression  of  Expert 
Opinion  ; "  and 

Whereas,  Referring  to  the  various  publications  concerning  vivisection 
which  from  time  to  time  have  appeared,  this  so-called  "Statement  in  be- 
half of  Science,"  meets  argument  by  the  imputation  of  dishonesty,  alleging 
that  : 

' '  In  these  publications  there  often  figure  extracts  from   Scientific 
writings,  and  in  many  cases  these  extracts  are  so  garbled,  that  only 
ignorant  or  reckless  animosity  could  be  accepted  in  excuse  for  their 
seeming  bad  faith"  and 
Whereas,  This  Association,  protesting  against  such  injurious  imputa- 
tions without  production  of  a  particle  of  evidence  of  their  truth,  directed 
its  Secretary  to  request  from  each  individual  signer  of  this  statement,  some 
reference  to  the  "  many "  proofs  upon  which   the  charge  was  professedly 
made  ;  and 

Whereas,  In  accordance  with  this  authorization,  the  Secretary,  in  Janu- 
ary, 1899,  asked  for  such  evidence  from  Surgeon-General  Sternberg,  U.  S. 
Army  ;  from  Daniel  E.  Salmon  and  Charles  Wardell  Stiles  (all  in  the  em- 
ploy of  the  United  States  Government),  and  made  the  same  request  by 
personal   letter   to  each   of  ^the  other  signers  of   this  document,   without 


i6 

obtaining  from  a  single  individual,  reference  to  one  "garbled"  extract 
from  scientific  writings  ;  and 

Whereas,  This  result  proves  that  most  eminent  scientists  are  not  above 
affixing  their  names  to  public  "Statements  in  behalf  of  Science"  which 
they  did  not  promptly  substantiate,  and  of  the  truth  of  which,  so  far  as 
concerns  America,  apparently  they  never  had  the  slightest  evidence  ;  there- 
fore, 

Resolved,  I.  That  the  American  Humane  Association  hereby  records  its 
emphatic  condemnation  of  this  apparent  falsehood.  It  believes  that  Science 
rightly  understood,  means  only  the  simple  truth  ;  that  just  criticism  of  any 
method  of  scientific  inquiry  is  entirely  legitimate  and  right ;  and  that  no  ex- 
posure of  the  abuses  of  vivisection — however  unwelcome — can  ever  justify 
a  falsehood  in  their  defense,  or  make  mendacit}'^  a  scientific  privilege. 

Resolved,  II.  That  this  Association  does  not  assert  that  in  course  of  this 
controversy  over  the  abuses  of  animal  experimentation — a  controversy  ex- 
tending over  a  quarter  of  a  century,  and  involving  Europe  even  more  than 
America — no  errors  or  mistakes  have  ever  been  made.  It  does,  however, 
most  confidently  affirm  that  no  "garbled"  extracts  from  scientific  writings, 
implying  a  difTerent  sense  and  purport  from  that  of  the  authors  quoted, 
can  be  pointed  out  in  any  publication,  tract  or  pamphlet  issued  by  its 
authority.  It  believes  that  not  only  regarding  vivisection,  but  always  and 
everywhere,  the  exact  truth  is  of  supreme  importance  ;  that  what  we  need 
is  not  the  secrecy  of  the  laboratory,  but  ever  "  more  light ;"  and  that  even 
from  opponents,  all  criticism  should  be  welcome,  when  it  is  based  on 
truth. 


Literature  Concerning  Vivisection. 


Medical  Opinions  concerning  Vivisection, 

Is  Vivisection  Painful  ?         -         -         -         - 

Scientific  Chicaner}'  :    Does  it  Pay?  - 

Confessions  of  a  Vivisector,        ... 

Facts  about  Vivisection,       .... 

State  Supervision  of  Vivisection, 

Dr.  Theophilus  Parvin  on  Vivisection, 

Ph)'siology  in  our  Public  Schools, 

A  Dangerous  Ideal, 

The  Brutalization  of  Childhood, 

Shall  Science  do  Murder?  ... 

Opinions  concerning  Vivisection  in  Schools, 

Abstract  of  Report  on  Vivisection  in  America,    " 

Does  Science  need  Secrecy?    (15th  Thousand),    " 

Report   of   American    Humane    Association   on 
Vivisection  in  America,  ... 

Human  Vivisection, 

Animals'    Rights   and    Vivisection    in    America, 
(Fifth  Thousand), 


jer   dozen    copies. 

$  .06 

.08 

•  35 

.08 

.08 

.08 

.08 

.06 

.10 

.05 

.12 

.12 

.20 

.60 

per  copy, 

.08 

"       " 

.08 

.40 


These    prices    include    postage.      A    single    copy   of    all    the 
pamphlets,  etc.,  will    be  sent,  postage    paid,  to  any  address    for 

five   cents. 

■0 

Address  : 


above 
eighty- 


HUMANE   EDUCATION    COMMITTEE, 

No.  61  Westminster   Street, 
Providence,   R.  I. 


HUMANE    LITERATURE. 


The  American  Humane  Association  was  organized  in  1877,  for  the 
purpose  of  promoting  unit)'^  and  concert  of  action  among  the  American 
societies,  having  for  their  object  the  prevention  of  Cruelty  to  children 
and  animals.  For  twenty-three  years  it  has  endeavored  to  carry 
out  this  purpose,  principally  through  deliberative  conventions,  held 
annually  in  various  cities  throughout  the  Union,  and  in  Canada.  At 
the  meeting  of  the  Association  in  Washington,  D.  C,  in  December,  1898, 
it  was  decided  somewhat  to  enlarge  its  field  of  activity,  and  to  make 
the  Association  more  of  an  Educational  force  in  awakening  public 
sentiment  to  the  need  of  various  reforms. 

The  principal  method  through  which  the  American  Humane  Association 
will  aim  to  accomplish  this  purpose  is  by  the  systematic  distribution  of 
Humane  Literature.  So  far  as  funds  permit,  it  proposes  to  promulgate 
the  ideals  of  humane  conduct  in  every  direction  where  necessity  exists. 
Among  the  subjects  regarding  which  it  would  seek  more  thoroughly  to 
arouse  public  sentiment  are  the  abuses  connected  with  the  treatment  of 
domestic  animals  ;  the  transportation  of  cattle  and  their  slaughter  for 
food  ;  the  extermination  of  birds  for  the  demands  of  fashion ;  the 
cruelties  of  "sport;"  the  abuses  of  vivisection  when  carried  on,  as 
now,  without  State  supervision  or  control  ;  the  cruelties  pertaining 
to  child-life,  and  above  all,  the  great  and  growing  abomination 
of  Human  Vivisection,  in  the  subjection  of  children  and  others  to 
scientific  experimentation. 

The  extent  to  which  this  work  can  be  carried  out  will  depend  upon 
the  assistance  received.  All  interested  are  urgently  solicited  to  contribute 
towards  this  object.  Every  dollar  so  contributed  will  be  devoted  wholly 
to  the  publication  and  dissemination  of  Humane  Literature.  Should 
subscribers  desire  their  contributions  to  be  especially  devoted  to  any 
one  of  the  above  lines  of  this  humanitarian  work,  their  preferences  will 
be  observed. 

Francis    H.    Rowley,    D.D., 

Treas.   Humane  Literature  Committee, 
No.   163  Winter  Street, 

Fall  River,  Mass, 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 

This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated  below,  or  at  the 
expiration  of  a  definite  period  after  the  date  of  borrowing,  as 
provided  by  the  rules  of  the  Library  or  by  special  arrange- 
ment with  the  Librarian  in  charge. 

DATE  BORROWED 

DATE  DUE 

DATE  BORROWED 

DATE  DUE 

V  ■■ 

C28(i14i)mIOO 

<^5  Am35 

[Anerioan  hum^e  association. 
p=||^i£ia^ioanery,  does  Jt 


<:^/^^j~  ^^sr 


